Tag: criticism

• RIP Reviewer #2: Are All Peer Reviewers Dicks Now?

  October 8, 2025

  

  Civility, care, and the ethics of critique in academia

  Here are some (lightly edited, anonymous) highlights from some recent peer review reports I received on submissions to Q1 journals.

  “a rather basic, limited and under-referenced overview”
  “I do not see how it contributes any original scholarship to the field”
  “The claim that [XYZ] is nonsense.”

  … and these weren’t even from Reviewer 2!

  Perhaps more distressingly, the following quote from an editor:

  “The paper might be interesting but is not well prepared, and not technically accurate or insightful, as revealed in biting commentary from the best of two reviews”

  The editor tries to be encouraging while also defending the same “biting commentary”:

  “Authors may take advantage of these excellent and insightful review comments, and possibly compose a new paper for a possible future submission”

  You may be thinking “Suck it up, snowflake.”

  Sorry but no.

  I’ve had harsh reviews before. I’ve written harsh reviews before. But you never call someone’s work ‘nonsense.’ You never call someone’s work ‘unoriginal’ or ‘basic’, even if you may think it. You certainly never do so without providing any suggestions as to how to redress these critiques, as these reviewers neglected to do.

  I might take about half an hour to write a blog post. Maybe up to a day or so if it’s a bit longer, needs some referencing, editing or proofing etc. I don’t really care if people don’t read or don’t like this work. It’s mainly for myself. However, the articles that these comments received took between four and twelve months to write: you expect some level of engagement and at least basic common human courtesy in how responses are framed.

  Reviewers: don’t be a dick.

  Editors: shield contributors from harsh reviews.

  Academia is intimidating and gatekept enough without this actual nonsense.

• Critics and creation

  January 22, 2024

  

  I started reading this interview this morning, between Anne Helen Peterson and Betsy Gaines Quammen. I still haven’t finished reading, despite being utterly fascinated, but even before I got to the guts of the interview, I was struck by a thought:

  In the algorithmised world, the creator is the critic.

  This thought is not necessarily happening in isolation; I’ve been thinking about ‘algorithmic culture’ for a couple of years, trying to order these thoughts into academic writing, or even creative writing. But this thought feels like a step in the right direction, even if I’ve no idea what the final output should or will be. Let’s scribble out some notes…

  If there’s someone whose work we enjoy, they’ll probably have an online presence — a blog or social media feed we can follow — where they’ll share what they like.

  It’s an organic kind of culture — but it’s one where the art and vocation of the critic continues to be minimised.

  This — and associated phenomena — is the subject of a whole bunch of recent and upcoming books (including this one, which is at the top of my to-read pile for the next month): a kind of culture where the all-powerful algorithm becomes the sole arbiter of taste, but I also think there is pressure on creatives to be their own kind of critical and cultural hub.

  On the inverse, what we may traditionally have called critics — so modern-day social media commentators, influencers, your Booktubers or Booktokkers, your video essayists and their ilk — now also feel pressure to create. This pressure will come from their followers and acolytes, but also from random people who encounter them online, who will say something like “if you know so much why don’t you just do it yourself” etc etc…

  Some critics will leap at the opportunity and they absolutely should — we are hearing from diverse voices that wouldn’t otherwise have thought to try.

  But some should leave the creation to others — not because they’re not worth hearing from, they absolutely are — but because their value, their creativity, their strength, lies in how they shape language, images, metaphor, around the work of others. They don’t realise — as I didn’t for a long time — that being a critic is a vocation, a life’s work, a real skill. Look at any longer-form piece in the London Review of Books or The New Inquiry and it becomes very clear how valuable this work is.

  I’ve always loved the term critic, particularly cultural critic, or commentator, or essayist… they always seemed like wonderful archaic terms that don’t belong in the modern, fragmented, divided, confused world. But to call oneself a critic or essayist, to own that, and only that, is to defy the norms of culture; to refuse the ‘pillars’ of novel, film, press/journalism, and to stand to one side, giving much-needed perspective to how these archaic forms define, reflect, and challenge society.

• Michel Chion on film analysis

  September 10, 2014

  

  “The right way to work on a film – to avoid too closed an interpretation – seems to me to be to watch it several times with no precise intentions… As in a police enquiry, one should not set up any hierarchies or look in any particular direction. One should not banish emotions and projections, but rather bring them to light, formulate and be aware of them, let them float.

  “A film is a system, not of meanings, but of signifiers. We must go in search of these signifiers … and we can do this only by means of a non-intentional method; for in cinema, that art that fixes rhythms, substances, forms, figures and all kinds of other things onto a single support, the signifier can sit anywhere.”

  Chion, M. (2013). Eyes Wide Shut. London: British Film Institute, pp. 37-8.